Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers., page 10
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 68 times


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 10:10 PM by TheMalefactor
Just finished reading this thread and I just have to say Drew I have no idea why you keep setting-yourself up to be beaten down like a human pinata. LOL

Seriously man, in this post (www.abovetopsecret.com...) it's all a conspiracy:

"The problem with this approach is that Jacque Vallee discovered there was indeed a higher level CIA coverup of Bluebook and it's well recognized that Condon was also a coverup. Besides there's been TONS of military PROMOTION of the alien invasion, as Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" documents. "

But now when you're confronted with actual FOIA documents that even go so far as to mention the word UFO, it's all rubbish simply because it says "rumors of unidentified flying objects ... were disproven." *Therefore* it must be true? For Christ's sake the base had a __UFO officer__!

Frankly I'm more willing to believe these guys who have manned up saying they're willing to confess before congress under oath (around the end: www.youtube.com...) than I am this guy James who apparently won't even bother to get up off his ass to call the guy who was there with his pops.

I mean seriously everyone and their brother seems to contradict what James's dad is saying. Since his father is the only one who apparently disagrees with the story, why doesn't HE say something? Or how bout putting him on the stand with these other old codgers who ARE willing to place themselves before our nations law-makers and subject themselves to potential perjury charges.

By the sounds of it James doesn't want dear old dad to have to face that kind of scenario. Wouldn't want to jeopardize the poor mans health for something as trivial as our NATIONS NATIONAL SECURITY!!!

You guys can go on and on all day about who knows more about the specifics of the story and the history of the UFO-thing, but for me as an outsider it's pretty damn simple. There are documents showing there were failures during a weird-ass event, people have since come forward saying there's more to that story, and they're asking to testify about it under oath. Seems to me we should let them.


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 10:23 PM by drew hempel
reply to post by TheMalefactor


For Christ's sake the base had a __UFO officer__!

Who was the "UFO officer"?

If the base had a "UFO officer" why is there no report of a UFO sighting?

James Carlson simply reports the FACTS

An underground maintenance man jokingly says he sees a UFO.

The security guard then REPEATS what the maintenance man said right afterwards.

Figel then told the security guard to write a report down IF he saw a UFO.

No report was written.

Figel then repeated what was told him as a JOKE to the security team.

THERE IS NO REPORT OF THIS JOKE FROM THE SECURITY TEAM.

The security team was then interviewed by the shut down investigation team and no information of a UFO sighting could be found.

Therefore the rumor of a UFO was disproven.

James Carlson then shows that Robert Salas is the only person to make numerous erroneous claims about the Echo UFO rumor -- some 30 years after it happened.

So there are no first hand witnesses of a UFO.

There's no REPORT of a UFO.

It doesn't matter if the base had a "UFO officer" -- if no UFO was seen apparently the "UFO officer" had a lot of free time.

So unless someone has some evidence then all the people watching and believing the Larry King show are idiots.

It's as simple as that. Of course Robert Salas changed his story so many times that people were victims of him bringing up Echo Flight in the first place.

We only know this because James Carlson gives the detailed evidence.

James Carlson also explains that

the Minuteman ONE missiles had their computer control centralized at the launch facility.

That's why all 10 missiles shut off at the same time.

The Minuteman 2 missiles have their computer control on each missile.

So there was a faulty logic coupler and a "noise filter" corrected the problem.

There was never a report of a UFO at Echo Flight.

www.xtranormal.com...


[edit on 14-2-2010 by drew hempel]


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 10:48 PM by James Carlson
Originally posted by Robert Hastings

The Other Roswell Incidents (From the book UFOs and Nukes)

So far as is known, based on eyewitness testimony, it appears that the first confirmed UFO sightings at nuclear missile sites occurred near Walker Air Force Base, New Mexico, over a several-month period in 1963 and 1964.


Yeah, I know -- blah, blah, blah... I'm not surprised to see that you're still unable to remain on topic. Somebody says something you don't like or asks you to answer direct questions, and all you can do is throw pages and pages of quotations from your book at them, none of which have any real relevance to the subject -- you're worse than a one-trick pony -- you're a one-trick pony who forgot how to walk...

Tell me, is it just impossible for you to talk about the events at Echo Flight without sounding ridiculous? Do you have anything at all to contribute other than your poorly interpreted interview with Walt Figel, a man who confirms he was at Echo Flight on March 16, has repeatedly told you that he figured these guys were "yanking my chain," a man who never had to sign any of the documents Salas insists he was made to sign (a practice that the USAF has never followed, since disclosure of classified materials has always been a crime), a man who confirms in every interview that nobody who investigated the incident cared a spot for UFOs, a man who you've gone back to reinterview at least twice as a result of the questions I put to you at UFO CHRONICLES, and which, contrary to your repeated declarations, you have still never answered -- just as you've not answered any of the questions I asked you last night on this very forum.

Y'know, for a guy who makes so much noise, you sure don't have much to say. Is this your idea of "answering direct questions"? Somebody asks you about a specific incident on March 16, 1967 and you toss off like a drunk bowler 20 pages of scratch from your book that details events everywhere and when excepting the one thing the question specifically concerns? If you don't know what happened at Echo Flight, if you have no evidence beyond Robert Salas' ridiculous and unbelievable statements that anything happened at Oscar Flight, if you have nothing that can clear up the numerous inconsistencies and provably incorrect statements made by Jamison, if all of your years of research and interviews can bring you no closer to the truth of March 1967 than where you stand right now, alone on a shoddy strip of beach without even the grace of a sunny disposition and nothing new or interesting to add to the conversation because you can't answer the questions, you won't explain the inconsistencies, and you simply do not possess the knowledge of military culture and classification protocols to even understand the events you continuously discuss and get wrong, then you should seriously consider telling us that, grab yourself a cup of iced coffee and a coconut cruller, pick up your toys and go home. I don't know about everybody else, but I for one am absolutely disgusted with your easily confirmed inability to stick to the topic of discussion. If you refuse to answer a few direct questions about March 1967, which you've done for two days now, preferring instead to stun your prey with everything but March 1967, you should just ball up your character into the stunning pile of crap you've turned it into and go home. Here's a thought, go back and read all of the questions I've asked you in this thread, give each one a little thought, and then answer them. Or is that too much to ask?


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 11:22 PM by James Carlson
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Frankly I'm more willing to believe these guys who have manned up saying they're willing to confess before congress under oath (around the end: www.youtube.com...) than I am this guy James who apparently won't even bother to get up off his ass to call the guy who was there with his pops.

I mean seriously everyone and their brother seems to contradict what James's dad is saying. Since his father is the only one who apparently disagrees with the story, why doesn't HE say something?


Wow -- you know absolutely nothing about this subject. Nobody has ever testified about this under oath to Congress. Nobody. These clowns gave a press conference -- not testimony. There are no witnesses to this non-event. Nobody has ever claimed they saw a UFO -- Robert Salas came out of the closet 15 years ago to report an incident that was repeatedly proven to be false -- he changed his statement repeatedly, and nobody has ever come forward to confirm anything that he has ever claimed -- he has made statements regarding this event that have been time and time again proven to be wrong; he's changed the date, the location, the command, and not one person has ever confirmed any of it. Why don't you do yourself a favor before making comments that come off as undeducated and meaningless and read my book, just so you can learn a few facts before sounding like a fool. It's FREE at www.scribd.com... -- it's well-documented, it's fully sourced, and I've heard from dozens of people who have said the details are spot on. In every single article Robert Salas has ever written on the subject, he has made comments and pointed out facts that are easily proven to be lies. The FOIA documents you've put such faith in that Salas sometimes uses as a source were written by an E-2 airman with little supervision, and Salas has refused to discuss the rest of those same documents, such as those that explain in detail exactly what happened. There are ICBM histories that weren't classified SECRET like those that Salas has used, but were TOP SECRET NOFORN that also explain in detail exactly what happened, but everybody seems to want to ignore those documents in favor of a bunch of crap that Salas says that isn't even mentioned in the FOIA docs that he's used. There isn't a single confirmation by anybody in 40 years, 15 of which since Salas came out with his fictional accounts to confirm anything about his story, including Walt Figel's account, all of which has been confirmed by my father. You put your faith in SECRET documents that by law would require a minimum classification of TOP SECRET if UFOs were actually involved in any of these events, documents that at one time Salas himself refused to believe in. There were no equipment failures on March 24-25 -- which is the date Salas now claims -- and this is easily proven; there were no UFOs reported on March 16, and this is also easily proven. Now you can believe in them if you want, but you'd be locking yourself in the closet with one man who's a confirmed liar with poor memory and another man who's a confirmed flake without any ability whatsoever to defend his point of view -- or you can take off a couple of days, read up on the subject so you know what you're talking about, and then come back and say something intelligent and on point. Or you can just go on like you are -- adding nothing useful and giving your opinion on subjects that everybody else is well past. I don't mean to be rude, but if this is the extent of the argument that the folks around here are capable of raising, this discussion is already over.


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 11:52 PM by TheMalefactor
Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by TheMalefactor


For Christ's sake the base had a __UFO officer__!

Who was the "UFO officer"?


Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it? Your buddy James was extolling his hard-on for some dude named Lewis Chase, a page back (www.abovetopsecret.com...):

___
"Where UFOs are concerned, ___Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase___ was the final authority at Malmstrom AFB and it was his responsibility to investigate all UFOs. It's also well-substantiated that Lewis D. Chase was well aware of the incident at Echo Flight on March 16, and its investigation, and he was equally aware that UFOs were not involved. Salas' irresponsible slanders about this man after he died and could no longer defend himself is worse than any of the garbage you've said about my father, and people shouldn't applaud him for it -- he should be ashamed for making such comments without any evidence whatsoever to back up those claims. His whole Chase commentary is nothing short of sickening and adds nothing at all to his argument or yours, since standing orders in the Department of Defense is standing orders, period. You obey them, you don't treat them as recommendations. Those orders came from and with the full authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and there's not a commanding officer or ___UFO officer___ in the entire USAF who would have ignored them."
___


If the base had a "UFO officer" why is there no report of a UFO sighting?


You do realize when words leave a persons mouth that amounts to a "report" right? If not then clearly your brain is wired to your arse because as far as I'm aware right now we have no government officials investigating UFOs. Meaning no __report__ of any UFO at this point in time can be considered a "report."

Guess all those clowns in Stephensville were just spouting rumors -- radar be damned. LOL

James Carlson simply reports the FACTS


Oh really. Facts you say. I seem to remember several posts showing his blatant misrepresentation and distortion of the truth:

0. www.abovetopsecret.com...
1. www.abovetopsecret.com...
2. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also remember another guy asking him, if he was being slandered that he produce the documentation to show this was the case (www.abovetopsecret.com...).

Nope, that didn't materialize, but we can take James on his word because lord knows he was there (oh right that was his DAD) and he clearly knows so much about what he's talking about with his extensive referencing wikipedia articles in his book. Seriously? Do you know what an actual research paper looks like?

An underground maintenance man jokingly says he sees a UFO.

The security guard then REPEATS what the maintenance man said right afterwards.


Didn't we go over what a "rumor" constitutes? Show me where that is in the official documentation. Oh it's not recorded. Well then it must be false, because based on your logic if it's not documented it didn't happen. LOL

The security team was then interviewed by the shut down investigation team and no information of a UFO sighting could be found.

Therefore the rumor of a UFO was disproven.


Ah here we go again with the boy who likes some UFO conspiracies but not others.

_____
"The problem with this approach is that Jacque Vallee discovered there was indeed a higher level CIA coverup of Bluebook and it's well recognized that Condon was also a coverup. Besides there's been TONS of military PROMOTION of the alien invasion, as Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" documents. "
_____


reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 11:55 PM by TheMalefactor
Originally posted by James Carlson
Wow -- you know absolutely nothing about this subject. Nobody has ever testified about this under oath to Congress.


Damn your reading comprehension is as bad as the other guy.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Frankly I'm more willing to believe these guys who have manned up saying they're WILLING TO confess before congress under oath (around the end: www.youtube.com...) than I am this guy James who apparently won't even bother to get up off his ass to call the guy who was there with his pops.

I mean seriously everyone and their brother seems to contradict what James's dad is saying. Since his father is the only one who apparently disagrees with the story, why doesn't HE say something?



reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 01:44 AM by James Carlson
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
I mean seriously everyone and their brother seems to contradict what James's dad is saying. Since his father is the only one who apparently disagrees with the story, why doesn't HE say something?


Nobody who was actually there has ever contradicted my father -- you're making an assumption because you know nothing about the topic. Walt Figel and my father were the only people in the room, and Figel has repeatedly stated that he had the impression the guys who said "This UFO must have brought the missiles down" were joking around -- in every single interview with him, he has said the same thing: "I thought it was a joke, that these guys were yanking my chain," exactly as every investigator who ever talked to them over the course of the next few months. The security personnel who were with the maintenance men who first reported this statement did not notice a UFO over the silo, and they were outside with already established comms via the 2-way that only they carried. The only reason they were there was to maintain these comms and to protect the maintenance personnel. The security guys were awake when the incident occurred and had to wake up the maintenance crew who were asleep. Maintenance had to go inside to the equipment room that was 6 ft underground in order to call Figel and my father at the LCF while the security men stayed outside, supposedly where the UFO was, and yet nobody mentioned a UFO until after the maintenence personnel had actually checked the status of the missile in the silo -- and then, that notification did not come from the security team -- the guys still outside with a 2-way with already pre-established comms who were the only ones awake when the missiles went offline -- but from the guy 6 ft under who said, "yeah, we've got a channel 9 No-Go, a UFO must have done it." And shortly afterwards, the next "report" came from another security crew, who had heard everything because they were required to monitor the 2-way as part of their job, and one of them said. "hey, yeah -- we see one over here too". Figel told them -- make sure you log it down, which they failed to do, reporting instead that nothing odd was noted. Nobody thought this was a real UFO, and nobody ever interpreted this crap as a real sighting until Robert Hastings came around -- and he's got a record for believing everything anybody has ever told him about UFOs even when there is no evidence for it -- case in point, his insane claims about Jamison -- all of which I've detailed in my book, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you, because you obviously know nothing about this case. ONLY Robert Hastings says there was a UFO -- Walt Figel has never claimed there was a real UFO, my father has never claimed there was a real UFO, and doesn't even believe in UFOs, and Robert Salas' commander, who Salas claims was with him during the events at Oscar Flight has also said that he does not believe in UFOs. Robert Salas also claims that there was a UFO at E-Flight, but only because he says someone told him about it the day after his watch at Oscar Flight was over, saying "the same thing happened at Echo Flight." Except for 13 years he was claiming first that my father called and told him while he was on watch, which was a lie, and then that "another LCF" officer he never named told him, which was a lie, and then SAC called his commander and said the same thing happened at E-Flight, and his commander informed him. That all changed when he changed the date, so now, although for years he was positive his commander told him while they were still on watch, he says somebody else told him, but he won't say who, although he's now certain it was the day after O-Flight. Unfortunately, it's already been proven that no equipment failures occurred on this new date, but he was too stupid to take any already proven facts into consideration, 'cause he's a brainless twit. Okay? Got it?


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 12:21 PM by TheMalefactor
Originally posted by James Carlson
Walt Figel and my father were the only people in the room, and Figel has repeatedly stated that he had the impression the guys who said "This UFO must have brought the missiles down" were joking around -- in every single interview with him, he has said the same thing: "I thought it was a joke, that these guys were yanking my chain," exactly as every investigator who ever talked to them over the course of the next few months.


Rather than paraphrasing, because lord knows we can't trust your capability to read (www.abovetopsecret.com...), lets show exactly what *was* said:

______
RH: What was the demeanor of the guard you were talking to?

WF: Um, you know, I wouldn’t say panicked, or anything [like that]. I was thinking he was yanking my chain more than anything else.

RH: But he seemed to be serious to you?

WF: He seemed to be serious and I wasn’t taking him seriously.

RH: Alright. If it was a large object, did he describe the shape of the object?

WF: He just said a large round object.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
______


Ah of course it was all a joke! Now I see it! See guard #1 was the straight-man and guard #2 was the funny man, sad thing is guard #2 never bothered to add anything to the conversation.

... he's changed the date, the location, the command, and not one person has ever confirmed any of it.


Holy sh**, he forgot the date too?! Stop the presses, "OLD MAN FORGETS **EXACT DATE** OF EVENT 30-UMPTEENTH YEARS AGO!"

Well you know what buddy? His memory was good enough that he found official documentation related to something apparently pretty damn similar to what he remembers happening. That's a hell of a lot more than the amount of material you're bringing to the table.

How about showing me *EXACTLY* where he made these mistakes that you're claiming.

I want to see it IN PRINT from an ORIGINAL SOURCE because I'm not taking your word for anything.

Why don't you do yourself a favor before making comments that come off as undeducated and meaningless and read my book, ...


I think I'll just quote back some of your own putrid bile:

___

- blah, blah, blah... I'm not surprised to see that you're still unable to remain on topic. Somebody says something you don't like or asks you to answer direct questions, and all you can do is [tell them to read your] book ... none of which have any real relevance to the subject -- you're worse than a one-trick pony -- you're a one-trick pony who forgot how to walk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
____

I'd rather be _uneducated_ (<--correct spelling) than behave the way you've been acting (yeah I know it's too late for that but it takes an ass**** to know one). Hastings and several other people in this thread have been more than professional with you, but by the sounds of you can't stand it when people actually *do* address your questions with counter-information.

So why the hell should I bother to "learn the nitty-gritty details," when all you seem to do is ignore and flame those people who point out things you don't want to hear? Grow the HELL up and then I might think you have anything worth saying.

It's FREE at www.scribd.com... -- it's well-documented, it's fully sourced, and I've heard from dozens of people who have said the details are spot on.


Haha... nice little bit of self promotion there. Since you're a big fan of wikipedia you might get this joke: {{who}}

[edit on 15-2-2010 by TheMalefactor]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 12:22 PM by TheMalefactor
The FOIA documents you've put such faith in that Salas sometimes uses as a source were written by an E-2 airman with little supervision, and Salas has refused to discuss the rest of those same documents, such as those that explain in detail exactly what happened.


haha ... wow, just wow man. See I actually read the thread. Yep even what *you* had to say. I think I'll just let you debate yourself:

_____
One reason is because official documents are confirmed. They're drafted by an E-2 clerk, sent to his superior who makes corrections if necessary and sends them back down to be corrected. Once they're done to his satisfaction, he sends them up the chain of command -- and to do that he has to sign them; he's putting his authority on the line that what's been written has been approved. Then he sends them up to his boss, and so forth until they reach the commanding officer, who places his signature on it, showing that he accepts final responsibility for the contents. When that's all done, the document is sent to wherever it's supposed to go for final deployment. If it's classified information, that document retains the same classification throughout the entire process, and everybody from the drafter on up has the clearance and need-to-know to access that document. If there are changes made, anybody who worked on it would know what those changes are. One person never drafts a classified document -- they are always confirmed all the way up the chain of command. Sometimes mistakes are made, but these can usually be checked and verified in other documents. But, the higher the classification, the less people are involved, but the more care is taken with the contents. And in 1967, when documents were regularly assigned automatic declassification instructions, it was well understand that information that there was a particular need to keep safeguarded would not be assigned to that category, where it would drop a level every three years or so. None of the documents related to Echo Flight were in such a protected category. They all had automatic downgrading associated. This kind of classification demands very careful handling, because nobody wants military secrets disclosed automatically because someone put them in the wrong downgrading category. So in these, everything is double-checked and confirmed by everybody who has a hand in their development. It's just irresponsible to suspect that these documents can't be trusted

www.abovetopsecret.com...
_____

There isn't a single confirmation by anybody in 40 years, 15 of which since Salas came out with his fictional accounts to confirm anything about his story, including Walt Figel's account, all of which has been confirmed by my father


If wishes were ponies ... How about this, you get your father to put together a video stating exactly what *YOU* say has happened and then get it confirmed before a notary.

You know the standard legal mumbo-jumbo, an affidavit confirming,

"(1) These recollections were written independently. (2) I did not confer with anyone to make this document / video appear to support each other. (3) These accounts are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge."

You do that and then you might be worth listening to. Until then you're just some random guy who's got a whole lot of nothing.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 04:25 PM by James Carlson
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
How about showing me *EXACTLY* where he made these mistakes that you're claiming.

I want to see it IN PRINT from an ORIGINAL SOURCE because I'm not taking your word for anything.
[edit on 15-2-2010 by TheMalefactor]


Are you brain dead? I wrote a 357 page book that I'm giving away for FREE at www.scribd.com... in which I give you direct quotes from the original sources; I show you EXACTLY where those sources are so you can check them yourself, and in most case I include links to those sources on the internet so any moron with a laptop can look it up himself. If you don't want to read the book, fine, don't -- but quit asking for pages and pages of evidence and commentary from me when I've already compiled it and made it available. I've even included 80 pages of FOIA documents that Salas and Klotz have, for the most part, ignored. I'm not going to rehash an old argument that I already put a great deal of time and effort into preparing so that you have everything in one place, simply to satisfy the infantile arguments of a man who refuses to even look at the evidence that's available. Do I need to lead you by the hand to at least look at what's being brought to the table, or are you happy sitting in the children's section with the happy meals and the punch? I suspect that it doesn't matter how much evidence anybody puts in front of you, you're still going to stick with your steadfast opinion, refusing to look at anything else. Robert Salas is a confirmed liar and Robert Hastings is a buffoon who insists upon ignoring everything except the outrageous, unlikely, and completely unbelievable utterances of the "witnesses" he's solicited on the internet. I don't say that to be mean, I say it because I believe I've PROVEN it, but if you refuse to examine in any way whatsoever that PROOF, then it's a complete waste of time to even discuss the matter. You don't know what's on the record, you don't understand the arguments being made, you lack any substantive knowledge at all regarding the issues, you refuse to look at the documents explaining everything that went on in March 1967, and you think your understanding based on the flawed perspective of a few mindless individuals who have consciously hidden the facts of this case from their readers for at least 15 years is superior to evidence already confirmed and and easily verified by anybody with a laptop and some common sense. No offense, champ, but you are a waste of my time, so I'm going to respond in the only mature way available -- I'm going to take my argument to someone who will at least look at it. You can stand with Robert Hastings and ignore the world around you for as long as you like; I hope you have fun, and I hope your life continues to be whatever you want it to be, but I won't discuss this matter with someone who refuses to to even try to understand the points being made. Go with God...


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 07:21 PM by Xtraeme
Hey James, as I've been reading your book I've been checking some of your sources and there are some things that concern me. Early on, in the middle of pg. 14, you note:


(fig. 1 - full book, pg. 14)

This entire piece above completely misrepresents the actual meaning of what Salas wrote in the MUFON article. Salas himself notes,

This statement was informative in that there would be no reason to query the November Flight strike team (security) about rumors of UFOs in the area of Echo flight


As seen below:


(fig. 2 - full pdf here.)

And, clearly, if anyone reads the entire article it's immediately obvious Salas is discussing his research after the fact. The way you describe it in the book characterizes it as though he's saying that's what happened during the incident.

What Salas is discussing here is the page below (fig. 3) from the FOIA packet that he received from the 341st Strategic Missle Wing unit history:


(fig. 3 - full page here)

And it's in fact accurate to say,

... prior to the shutdown of all his missiles he had received more than one report from security patrols and maintenance crews that they had seen UFOs, one was directly above one of the LFs in Echo Flight.


As is noted by Figel himself,

WF: Oh, on radio, [they said,] “There’s this large object hovering over the site!” I’ve always been a non-believer [in UFOs] so I said, “Right, sure you do.” [They responded,] “Yeah! Yeah, we do!” So, [I said,] “There’s two of you there, saying so, so write it down in your report.” [The Strike Team leader] said, “What do you want us to do?” [I said,] “Follow your checklist. Go to the site, open it up, and call me.”

RH: What was the demeanor of the guard you were talking to?

WF: Um, you know, I wouldn’t say panicked, or anything [like that]. I was thinking he was yanking my chain more than anything else.

RH: But he seemed to be serious to you?

WF: He seemed to be serious and I wasn’t taking him seriously.

RH: Alright. If it was a large object, did he describe the shape of the object?

WF: He just said a large round object.
(source)


The only thing that's in question is whether it was a joke or not.

I'm also a little concerned here, because clearly Salas is admitting up front his mistakes about Echo, November & Oscar flight. Yet you've been insinuating that this was all brushed under the carpet.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Xtraeme]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 08:55 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by Xtraeme


Salas is the one misinterpreting the information because the report says

rumor of Echo Flight UFO was disproven.

THEN the report says November Flight is question.

Salas then claims -- this is INFORMATIVE BECAUSE NOVEMBER FLIGHT WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT ECHO FLIGHT.


Did you bother to read the entire thing? Do you understand that I'm pointing out that James is completely taking a quote out-of-context to portray Salas in a negative light?

Do you know what libel is?

Salas does a rare and somewhat amusing thing here, by describing in some detail an incident he wasn’t present at to observe, but what’s most interesting is his account of an event that almost goes unnoticed in the paragraphs above. He says here that among the many phone calls that went back and forth at Echo Flight was one from the E-Flight LCC to the MCCC of November Flight (which was later relocated to Oscar Flight, for reasons Salas has refused to discuss in any detail). This is a fairly important phone call, because as you shall see, it was this phone call, and only this phone call, that enables Salas to date the event he supposedly remembers so well. It is this phone call that lets him say, “I was at November-Oscar Flight when UFOs interfered with the nuclear strike capability of the United States of America on March 16, 1967.” It’s a shame that nobody at Echo Flight is willing to confirm that this phone call took place, but why would they? November Flight was not even in the same chain of command as Echo Flight, which, as we’ve seen, was manned by personnel attached to the 10th Missile Squadron. There is no reason for anybody at Echo Flight to communicate with November Flight, such a call being the responsibility of SAC. That’s the only way a military chain of command has ever worked in this nation. As affirmed above, each Missile Alert Facility has the ability to command and monitor all 50 Launch Facilities in the squadron, just in case other MAFs are disabled. This level of Inter-flight connectivity precludes any need to communicate the failure of missiles at a single facility to another squadron. And yet, Salas insists that:

The Echo MCCC related to me that prior to the shutdown of all his missiles he had received more than one report from security patrols and maintenance crews that they had seen UFOs, one was directly above one of the LFs in Echo Flight. The Echo crew confirmed that they had spoken to my commander that day and told him of their incident.18 Technically, this may be feasible since no actual date or length of time is


Frankly if Salas presses charges, which he should, you should be included in the suit.

There's a big difference between misinterpretation, as you portray it, and blatant, wanton mischaracterization for the purpose of defamation.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Xtraeme]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 10:09 PM by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme
Communication between squadrons is never necessary; in fact. when communication between squadrons is considered important, it is done by SAC, because that's part of their responsibility. That's part of the means provided by the military to prevent excessive communications that aren't necessary -- a squadron is answerable to their own chain of command -- not to other squadrons, and that's why such communications are generally not considered helpful. If one squadron needs knowledge that another squadron has, then it will be provided by their own chain of command -- in this case SAC. Communications, particularly during an emergency or an event that may result in an investigation, is ALWAYS up and down the direct chain of command -- nobody communicates outside of the direct command structure, which in this case would be from one squadron to another. SAC is in charge; they distribute information and they ensure information that isn't necessary to communicate is not communicated.

Salas' statements regarding the investigation's query to November Flight has nothing to do with squadron to squadron communication; he's saying that there's no reason to question November Flight security personnel regarding the rumors of UFOs at Echo Flight -- and he's wrong about that, because the questioning being done by this point isn't between squadrons, it's between the investigators and November Flight personnel; by this point everything's accelerated. SAC is now involved. Since UFOs were mentioned on the landline between the LCF and the maintenance crew checking on the status of the missiles, the investigation is required to clear that up, and since there was a crew out at the time -- it being 0845 after everybody else has already started their regular workday -- this being the November Flight crew, they needed to find out if they saw anything. They made up the only crew that was outside at the time, and they were questioned. They said they didn't see anything. That covers everybody's ass, so investigators can dismiss the question of UFOs entirely. Salas assumes they were questioned because they knew something, and that just can't be supported. They were querstioned, because they were outside, and that's the only reason they were questioned.

As for his statement that the Echo MCCC related to him information that discusses multiple UFO reports, it just isn't true. My father was the Echo MCCC and he didn't talk to Salas except to say that nothing happened, they used to receive UFO reports a lot, especially from maintenance or security crews that used to spend the night out at the silos, but none of them panned out and none of them were ever shown to be anything more than overactive imaginations by a bunch of 18-19 year-old spending the night in a spooky, extremely quiet place. These comments were received well after the investigation had ended, while Salas was trying to get confirmation for his story.

Salas also, claimed, however (he doesn't anymore, but he did at one time and I address all of that in the text) that my father called him while they were still at the LCF trying to find out what was going on with the missiles, and that represents squadron to squadron communication that would not occur. And my father agrees that it did not occur. This is first mentioned at the top of p.13 and has been on the CUFON website since well before 1999 (unless they removed it sometime the past week). In the pages 14 on, I discuss this phone call and point out that only this phone call allows Salas to confirm the March 16 date that he swore to for 13 or so years. You're looking at a section which discusses how Salas tried to find confirmation for a story he had already discussed on a couple different radio programs, while I'm talking about what his actual claims were in regards to the events at the LCF.



reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 10:18 PM by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme


Look, there's no reason to get upset here, because we're talking about 2 completely different statements that Salas has made. You're talking about the statements he made in a section that discusses his attempts to find confirmation, while I'm talking about statements he made describing what was actually going on on March 16, 1967. I'm trying to show that the only reason he settled on a date of March 16 and not some other date is because of his claims that my father called him at the LCF on March 16, 1967 -- that didn't happen, it wouldn't happen in any branch of the military, and it didn't happen -- it was a lie, not a mistake, and he found it necessary, not because my father confirmed everything he says and he desperately needed that, but because that phone call is the ONLY thing in any of his statements that confirms the date of March 16. And when he eventually -- 13 years later -- settled on March 24-25 as the new date, his memory of these events changed significantly. I believe it was significant enough to dioscount mere memory loss. You can believe what you liike, but his claims are in print, and I've repeatedly noted them for you.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 10:31 PM by Xtraeme
Originally posted by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme


Look, there's no reason to get upset here, because we're talking about 2 completely different statements that Salas has made.


James, I don't think you realize that summaries on websites are frequently wrong and written by people who are less than in the know. What you did in that section is unabashedly manipulate what Salas said to frame it in a way that was convenient for your argument.

The only reason I even bother to mention November flight and Echo flight is to show the man clearly recognizes the chain of command as you've described it, though you obviously have a spin here.

You're talking about the statements he made in a section that discusses his attempts to find confirmation, while I'm talking about statements he made describing what was actually going on on March 16, 1967. I'm trying to show that the only reason he settled on a date of March 16 and not some other date is because of his claims that my father called him at the LCF on March 16, 1967


You're not an idiot James.

If this was put before a judge you'd get slammed with libel. This is so clearly a misinterpretation of what's written that it's blatantly obvious to any fact-checker.

I have all the information I need at this point and I wish you the best of luck, but seriously you should have legal counsel. I can tell you self-publishing & distributing a book isn't going to protect you from the usual statutes.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 10:43 PM by drew hempel
reply to post by Xtraeme


Well I hope James cleared things up for you. I was giving my OPINION based on how I read the article. Obviously I'm just posting opinons on this thread in reply to other people's comments.

Please continue to read James' book and continue to ask further questions for clarification from James.

Personally I find the issue fascinating which it why I previously have asked Robert Hastings for his responses. It's unfortunate he has not replied to James' specific comments so maybe you can do that for Robert.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 11:04 PM by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme

I'm sorry you feel that way -- I might agree with if that's as far as he went, but it isn't -- he continuously makes up events that never happened, and when fallacies are discovered in his statements, he makes up something else. This argument you're making right now is entirely groundless because you're not even looking at the things he described as occurring at the LCf on March 16 -- and it's the only thing in everything he's ever written up to his equally groundless date change that enabled him to say "thisd happened to me on March 16, and I know it was March 16 because ---" His recollections are extremely detailed until he changes them, at which point he offers up more information that is equally detailed to illustrate why he believes such facts are facts ... but none of match he said prior to these, and most of them can be shown to be the impossibilities they are. If you don't see that, fine -- everybody's entitled to their opinion, but I can guarantee that there isn't a jury in the world who would believe what he has to say given his absolutely ridiculous record of changing events, facts and stories to fit whatever his current point of view is. You can believe, if you want that a UFO took out the missiles on March 16 at Echo Flight, but you're doing so in the face of insurmountable evidence that nothing more that an electronic noise pulse typical of the period and the technology actually did the job, a noise pulse that also took out the missiles at Alpha Flight in December 1966. You say he made some mistakes while I say he's a liar, but in the long run, he wasn't there, nobody ever suspected a UFO until he came around and said there was a UFO, and nobody has ever come forward to confirm anything he's said, while a lot of people have come forward to dispute his claims. If you actually read what he's written, you'll see that, and you'll also notice that he almost HAD to change the date to March 24, because that's the only day in the month of March that he can claim there's some kind of confirmation -- this being Hastings' discussion of Jamison which everybody who has ever served in the Air Force for that time period insists is absolutely absurd. My point of view isn't full of holes and I don't have to go begging for someone to confirm any of it -- it's all confirmed and verified, and yet you consider it negated by the fact that Salas insists otherwise. Have I gotten my facts wrong somewhere? Because if you show me any errors I'll happily remove or correct them, but you're reaching a conclusion based on absolutely nothing except your misguided confidence that Salas is an honest man when all you have to do to prove that he is not is to read his most recent collection of nonsense at UFO Chronicles. I don't want to change your mind if you have some reason to believe differently, but so far you haven't shown me anything. NOBODY believed there was a UFO anywhere near Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 until 1995 when Salas started talking about it. And since then he's changed significant parts of his story at least a dozen times. He's shown that he has absolutely no knowledge of military administration or classifcation protocols, although he would have been required to learn this at one time. And yet in the face of his absolutely unexplainable ignorance of the events of March 16, you are still convinced that he's an honest man who's telling the truth -- God love you, but I swear I don't see any of that. But you're welcome to your opinion. I wrote what I believe is true, and I've documented a lot of evidence to support it -- what has Salas documented other than some ridiculous rumors that were disproven within a week during an investigation that took months? Peace...


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 11:20 PM by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme


Y'know I'm really to hear you say that -- it's also apparent you don't understand the law -- what I've said I can prove. All you have to do is read it. Salas' discussion of his attempts to confirm what he said wioth my father is not even part of what I was discussing in my book -- I deal with that elsewhere. What he said, and what I wass commenting on is very plainly spelled out. Christ, I put all of his comments in blue font, so how the hell can you get that mixed up?

I agree, Salas does know the difference between November Flight and Echo Flight, and he knows just as well that the fact they were in different squadrons precludes any communications between them. And yet, he nonetheless told the whole world that my father, the MCCC at Echo Flight, called his commander and told him that the missiles at Echo Flight were brought down for the same reason! How can I possibly explain this more clearly? You are not reading the section I am plainly referring to -- you are looking at something else entirely. Salas claimed my father called him on March 16, and that phone call is the only reason he has ever given that can serve in any way as a confirmation for the date of March 16, 1967 -- and I showed that not only was that statement false, but it also would never have occurred due to the fact that communications between squadrons doesn't occur when this type of thing happens. Of course, he knows that! That's why I'm certain it's a lie and not an error!!
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 6 days ago with 63 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 14 days ago with 60 member flags
New UFO footage from my hometown
  Posted 18 days ago with 34 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 16 days ago with 28 member flags